AM & AM (Armed Conflict: Risk Categories) Somalia v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

"The two appeallants were Somali nationals each appealing a rejection to their applications for asylum.

In respect of the first appeallant (AM1), the only accepted fact regarding AM1 is that he is from Jowhar. On the latest evidence the population of the town is not in general exposed to serious harms and there is no longer any significant fighting there, as the insurgents have gained control of it (as they have of most of central and southern Somalia). Very recently, the UIC appears to have won the internal battle of control amongst the insurgents. There is evidence that en route travel to Jowhar is hazardous, but it must be a matter for the respondent, as and when removal arrangements are being finalised, to satisfy herself that there would be safe en route travel for this appellant. Accordingly the appellant has failed to show that if removed he would face a real risk of persecution, serious harm or treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. AM1's appeal was therefore dismissed.

In respect of the second appellant, (AM2), who is from a part of Mogadishu, the court saw nothing to indicate that he is
someone who would be likely to have connections with powerful actors in Mogadishu, such as prominent businessmen or senior figures in the insurgency or in powerful criminal gangs. He had family members in the city at the time of the hearing of his case before IJ Beg in July 2007, but in view of the major displacement of the city?s population since then we think it unlikely that, even if they are still there, they are any longer in a position to protect him as they did previously. The fact that he and his family members are from the Sheikhal Logobe clan, which is not as such a majority clan, further decreases the likelihood that he could achieve protection from serious harm in that city. In this regard, the court attached significant weight to the evidence of AC that as a result of events between 2003-2007 in Mogadishu the Al Shabab has come to perceive the Sheikhal Logobe adversely as TFG supporters. Accordingly, the court was satisfied that in his home area he faces a real risk of persecution, serious harm and treatment contrary to Article 3. The court was also satisfied that the risk of persecution in his home area would have as one of its effective reasons, his race or ethnicity, in the form of his clan identity as Sheikhal Logobe. The court was satisfied that the appellant if returned would face a real risk of persecution, serious harm and treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and therefore allowed the appeal on asylum grounds and Article 3 ECHR grounds. "